(Notes related to my video of the same name.)
- disorganized narrative structure – their account jumps between different claims without clear connections, making it difficult to follow the actual sequence of events.
- disrupted cause-effect reasoning – there’s a disconnect between described actions and outcomes, with leaps in logic that aren’t explained.
- shifting narrative – the story (and their claims) evolve.
. - inconsistent narrative – While they provide a narrative or explanations, the actual issue remains unclear, with shifting descriptions of what happened;
- escalating claims – the severity or scope of allegations increases over time, often in response to pushback or questions. What begins as a simple complaint evolves into accusations of coordinated abuse, criminal activity, or far-reaching conspiracies. This pattern serves to raise the stakes and pressure others to respond.
- lack of specificity – despite multiple opportunities to clearly explain what happened, the details remain vague and confusing, making it difficult to understand the actual incident.
- vague allegations – making declarative claims that require a determination, but provide no specific details that would make this claim verifiable.
- accusatory language – they make serious allegations without basis, and often projecting what they themselves are doing.
- threatening language – includes language that appears to be designed to intimidate rather than seek help (e.g. “they’ll see”)
- persecution framework – they position themselves at the center of a coordinated campaign involving multiple parties all working against them, and it doesn’t make sense for those parties to work together.
- certainty about others’ intentions (e.g. hostile attribution bias) – they attribute specific malicious motives to others without evidence.
- conspiratorial thinking – a belief that they have access to information or power that others don’t.
- reality distortion – their retelling of events differs significantly from what can be documented, suggesting potential difficulty perceiving interactions with others accurately.
- implied threats – the message has an ominous tone of warning/threatening everyone they perceive to be involved in the conspiracy.
- inappropriate demands – they attempt to dictate how you should respond – a form of directorial control – as well as reality.
- misattribution of authority – they may believe you have power/position that you do not have.
- forum shopping – they may appear to be asking many different people for ‘help’ while continuing to characterize themselves as a victim who can’t get help. The reason they ‘can’t get help’ is because they are being filtered out of being able to be helped by those organizations.
- pronoun dropping – the inconsistent use of first-person pronouns can be a linguistic marker of who they see as acting or being acted upon.